Heaven and hell

Since the end of the afghan-soviet war, the Muslim world seems to have yielded to a socio-religious regression. No doubt the religious fanaticism was always latently lurking, ready to pounce back again after dismissing the efforts of revolutionary heroes such as Massoud, amongst others. The visionary efforts of Atatürk in the thirties were similarly rejected. One presumes there's a silent Muslim majority who disapproves of certain Sharia laws. A good proportion of this tacit majority might even believe that Muslim women have as much right as Muslim men to benefit from all forms of education, social and professional opportunities.

The real men, the heroes, could never imagine that by freeing women by a rule of law from an imposed obligation of wearing a mobile prison, or by allowing them exactly the same rights and opportunities as they themselves have, would represent an impious threat to civilisation. Or would God create beauty for it to be shrouded from head to foot in black or grey for as long as it lasts? Should we hide beautiful flowers in full bloom under black tarpaulin so that they suffocate and whither away prematurely? Should we banish birds of paradise to substitute them with crows, rooks and ravens?

The venerated prophet Muhammad is not God. He is not the son of God. He is not a distant relative of God. He was a self-proclaimed prophet and messenger of God. He was no doubt a good man, with the passions and healthy appetite of good men. His conviction of being a prophet and messenger of God came from his revelation from the alleged visit of Gabriel during a period when Muhammad sought seclusion in a mountain cave.
Intellectuals of the Middles Ages, such as Dante, regarded Muhammed as a scissionist, the divider of the monotheist religions, the three 'children' of Abraham.

Ironically Muhammad staunchly defended monotheism, and this alone would condemn the satanic tyranny of all Islamic extremists who naively believe they can kill in the name of their prophet and eventually be rewarded for their crimes by being absurdly granted a harem of virgins in paradise.
Essentially all religions would support the belief that there is only one God. Even science would accord that the universe and its ever evolving mechanism is not, and never could be, an accident. Is it not the creation of an 'almighty power'? Call it what you will, personify it, identify with it, as any form of intelligent life in the cosmos might also be inclined to do.

In any case hazard itself cannot logically exist. Nature or God would not recognise it. There is therefore a reason for everything. Isn't this the essential truth that governs life as it governs the stars? It engenders heroes as it does cowards, it determines the greatest statesman, and the smallest, meanest-minded, fanatic.

By venting the rabid hate that devours them, and by showing their total distain for the miracle of life, how can poor, frustrated, brainwashed beings pretend to believe in God? By extension how can they pretend to believe in and defend their prophet?
One human life is the relative nucleus of the entire universe, the sacred creation of God.

Most individuals have their own way of imagining and believing in an almighty, universal power. They don't have to wear a particular uniform, a dour, shapeless, all covering garment, or a sackcloth. They don't have to belong to a club, or go to a Church, a mosque or a synagogue to reveal or justify this. We have the right to believe according to our personal views and convictions. We also have the right not to believe, for this is how we are, how we were meant to be, by the grace of God, or the miracle of life, englobing circumstances, genetics and history.

Paradise and Inferno are not only the spiritual, polaric destinies intrinsic to religion. They don't only represent reward and punishment. Needless to add, they can also apply to how we consider our world and to what we do during our lifetime in order that it approach either the one or the other.

Nothing could be more irrational than to believe that by contributing to make the world hellish, one would be rewarded with Heaven. Those who assume the divine right to take away and destroy what God gives and creates, are worse than Lucifer. For even the devil would distain such foul pretentiousness. Let him ever possess their souls in Jahannam, for they can never be worthy of ending up anywhere else.

†
 

One of Viewfinders original objectives was to try to seek out the views of international readers interested enough in subjects raised to intelligently counter whatever rubbish I come up with. There must be millions of Muslims, for example, who, to put it mildly, wouldn't agree with the above. It would be interesting to know, for example, what they think about the El's recent, barbaric execution by decapitation of twenty-one Egyptian Copts in Libya.
Do Muslims believe that the Copts of Egypt (by all accounts direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians) have more ancestral rights than the invading Arab forces that imposed their religion and culture in Egypt much later in the history of the nation? Would they agree that, without having to resort to such atrocious violence, Islam is duty bound to impose itself wherever possible, and if this is generally considered not only acceptable but essential, for what motive would this be, assuming that the three monotheist religions are the generally accepted historic foundations of modern civilisation in the Middle East, Europe and the USA?

__
 

Montage and text © Mirino. (Montage includes a transposed image from English Russia, with grateful thanks).                               February, 2015